Q&A: Afghanistan explained

Can we win?

WHEN Operation Enduring Freedom was launched in Afghanistan in 2001 - by the US with UK backing - it was set to be a total success.

The Taliban ran - and al Qaeda fled to Pakistan.

Had the attack been pressed home, the victory would have been on the same scale as when the British military were last in Afghanistan 120 years before.

But instead we invaded Iraq - and Afghanistan became a badly under-resourced sideshow.

We WILL win there in the end, against all the odds. But only if we properly resource our effort and stick to the aim - the empowerment of Afghanistan's people.

For that, we need helicopters and more British battalions on the battlefield now.

We MUST hold the line until the Afghans are ready to take control of their own destiny.

The fact is, victory is all about winning over the hearts and minds of the locals.

This is because the terrorists are competing with us militarily AND for governance. So we have to give the Afghans a bureaucracy and a government they can look to and believe in.

Even if it's ramshackle, it has to be at least as good, if not better than, what the Taliban has on offer.

The trick is to make the Taliban irrelevant. That means honest governance driven from the top down that delivers on the promises to improve people's lives and cut corruption.

The UN has made a lot of promises to ordinary Afghans that are unfulfilled, like raising living standards, improving trade and cutting infant mortality.

It is up to us to provide the security and deliver on the promises.

And now, with the election of President Obama, a new phase of the campaign has begun - what one US General has called the "Decisive Summer".

This is a bit like the decisive summer of 1940 when, from July to September, the RAF fought and beat the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain.

Except this summer Our Boys are socking it to some modern fascists, the Taliban. US Marines have arrived in Helmand in big numbers and the Brits are out of the bases and into the fight.

Now, as then, a few of our lads are facing many of the enemy - and the rest of us will benefit from their efforts. But, I repeat, this will only happen if we get more resources.

In Northern Ireland we had 30,000 troops to police a province of 5,000-odd square miles and a population of 1.5 million. Once we'd helped build an effective police force and raised troops of the Ulster Defence Regiment locally, we were able to reduce those numbers.

In Afghanistan's Helmand province, we also have a population of 1.5 million. But they are armed to the teeth, speak Pashto and the area is more than 22,000 square miles.

And we only have around 9,100 troops there (a third of the Northern Ireland force), less than half the helicopters, and it is very, very hot, in every sense.

Admittedly, in Afghanistan the vast majority of the population are on our side - unlike in Northern Ireland. But in Helmand the bad guys have free rein to wait until we pull out from the ground we have taken, or villages we have visited, to murder anyone who has helped us and extort money and kidnap young men as casualty replacements.

No wonder people there are reluctant to stand up and be counted.

But we mustn't lose heart.

Three years ago we were nearing victory after Britain's 16 Air Assault Brigade arrived in Afghanistan.

The Brigade commander took the fight to the Taliban and was shredding them, when the Government lost its nerve over casualties and made our guys back off. At that time, the Taliban had been drawn into contact with the British and their Afghan allies like moths to a flame.

My old RSM, Captain Doug Beattie, pictured bottom left, led a mix of Afghan police and army to capture vital ground from the criminals - only to be told to withdraw and let them have it back.

Then, as now, the problems were four- fold - muddy direction from on high, too few British troops to hold ground, too few helicopters to lift our troops into the fight, and political meddling with the mission when it was working.

If we learn from that experience, we will WIN this war.

Click on the button below to pop up the full size map.

Click map to close

Why is Britain fighting?

THE rugged, arid lands of Afghanistan - historically a formidable battleground for foreign invaders - became the main target for the US-led War On Terror in 2001 following the September 11 terrorist outrage on the Twin Towers.

The land-locked Asian country was believed to be the hiding place of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

It was also home to the ruling Taliban regime - Islamic fundamentalists whose founders trained in religious schools in Pakistan. They formed the main enemy for allied forces in the region.

The Taliban were joined by a rag-tag bunch of foreign jihadi (holy war) fighters. It's claimed this included British Muslims.

Our Government believes that a secure and peaceful Afghanistan is vital for the national security of the United Kingdom.

Current Foreign Secretary David Miliband says: "The purpose of the mission is absolutely clear. It is to make sure Afghanistan does not become a safe haven for people who want to plot against the UK."

On October 7, 2001, when US president George W. Bush launched Operation Enduring Freedom to avenge the deaths of 3,017 people on 9/11, the aims were apparently simple: Find Bin Laden and the leaders of his al Qaeda network and remove the Taliban.

Initially, the operation was a success.

Britain was among a dozen or so countries who signed up to support the Alliance mission in the war-torn south of the Afghanistan.

By November 12, the country's capital Kabul had fallen to the allied forces as the Taliban were beaten by US-led coalition forces and the Afghan Northern Alliance.

Progress was so swift that our Defence Secretary at the time John Reid suggested British troops might leave Afghanistan "without firing a single shot" when they took over peace keeping operations. He was, however, proved to be spectacularly wrong.

But confusion and warfare in Afghanistan is nothing new. Strategically, the region has been crucial to British interests since the late 19th century as a trade route connecting the West with south and central Asia and the oil-rich Persian Gulf.

The inhospitable climate, extremes of heat and cold, and hard terrain have made it a formidable battle ground for foreign forces.

The plan & the mistakes

OUR military strategy in Afghanistan has constantly come under fire since the conflict began eight years ago.

When British troops first engaged in action, the idea was simple - force the Taliban to retreat.

It was a policy that saw heavy Taliban casualties with towns and villages destroyed. General Sir Richard Dannatt, head of the Army, admitted that British forces may have killed more civilians than Taliban fighters.

Dannatt also questioned the plan of fighting wars on two fronts - Iraq and Afghanistan - at the same time.

He said: "We would never have knowingly engaged on two major operations to run simultaneously with an army organised to only do one."

Brigadier Andrew Mackay, a commander of British forces in Helmand, said there had been too many pointless "clearances" of Taliban territory and too much emphasis on counting the enemy dead. And, without the necessary back-up to hold territory our troops had gained, withdrawing simply allowed the Taliban, pictured below, back in. Mackay feared we were falling into the same trap as the Americans had done in Vietnam.

He explained: "Unless we retain, gain and win the consent of the population within Helmand, we lose the campaign. The population is the prize."

Stephen Grey, author of Operation Snakebite, said: "Initially, there was little thought given to winning over the Afghan people. But that has changed. Now the Army has adopted Mackay's policy of winning hearts and minds in a bid to start rebuilding the country and allowing Afghanistan to take control of its own security."

And President Obama has already sent in more troops ahead of next month's elections.

Experts believe Britain now has three options: To stay in Helmand and provide the resources to succeed, to stay and muddle through. or to get out. One general said: "You can guarantee that it will be the second option that we pursue: constant muddling through, making it up as we go along."

What's Morale Like on the Front?

SURPRISINGLY, despite the growing death toll of comrades and the shortage of equipment, morale among British troops remains high.

When our forces first started to engage Taliban fighters in the summer of 2006, they relished the challenge. They saw Afghanistan as a chance for adventure, to prove themselves and their courage under fire.



Recent wars had done little to test the long-term fighting prowess of our troops. Both the Falklands in 1982 and the first Gulf war in 1991 were swift. And the second Iraq war in 2003 was over almost before it began.

Now, even with the excitement of close combat beginning to wane and many soldiers wondering if the end will ever be in sight, spirits are as high as ever. One young 3 Para lieutenant told Ground Truth author Patrick Bishop: "I see our job as nothing short of protecting the people of Britain. Making it safe for people like my girlfriend to travel to work with less or no fear of being blown up."

And Conservative MP and former Lt Colonel Patrick Mercer said: "People may believe that lines of flag-draped coffins returning to this country will erode the fighting spirit of our troops. They will mourn. But they will not be distracted from the task of defeating our enemies."

What if we Pulled Out?

LEAVING the job half-done would almost certainly let the Taliban back into crucial territories and provide al Qaeda terrorists with a chance of regaining a foothold in the region.

And it could lead to West-friendly neighbouring Pakistan falling into extremist hands.

Former Foreign Office advisor, Prof Malcolm Chambers, said: "We could retreat to a policy of leaving the Afghans to sort themselves out, and if al Qaeda tried to set up bases, we could bomb them from drones as we do in Pakistan."

However, with President Obama committing more US troops to the region, pulling British troops out now could harm our relationship with America forever. And it risks sending the message that our fallen soldiers died for no reason.

Kelly Gore, whose partner Lance Sgt Tobie Fasfous was killed in April, said: "The only thing keeping me going is that something good will come out of all of this. Unless it happens, I do think these lads have died in vain."

Conservative MP and former senior army officer Patrick Mercer said failing to crush the Taliban could see the collapse of Pakistan.

He added: "If the Pashtun Taliban in that country are able to topple the Government, then nuclear weapons will fall into the hands of the most extreme extremists.

"The threat to this country is clear."

Have We Got the Right Kit?

OUR forces are handicapped by huge shortages in the number of helicopters and armoured vehicles that experts warn are needed as a MINIMUM to beat the Taliban.

Most crucial is our helicopter shortage, with just SEVENTEEN in the entire country - ten Chinooks and seven ageing Sea Kings. Military experts believe we need at least 20 Chinook choppers, 10 Sea King, 20 Merlins and six Lynx.

But our entire fleet of choppers is in shocking disrepair. Only 39 Sea Kings out of 95 are "fit for purpose", while just 25 of 70 Merlins, 18 of 40 Chinooks, and 57 of 176 Lynx are operational.

Commanders demand helicopters because they give our troops the element of surprise and the ability to move across the so-called "battle space" of Helmand at speed.

Armoured vehicles are slow and the sand-trail kicked up behind the trucks and their noise gives away their position. A report by the Commons Defence Select Committee on Thursday blamed the lack of helicopters for undermining the protection of our troops.

But our brave squaddies are also lacking the tough personnel vehicles needed to protect them from a surge in roadside bombs. It's estimated they are short of 165 tough Mastiffs, the heavily armoured 6x6 patrol vehicles capable of carrying eight people, with two crew.

Experts say they need 200 or so sturdy Ridgeback armoured carriers, but are having to make do with just 64, with 93 on order. Our forces are also said to be staggeringly short on tough, fast Jackal patrol vehicles - they need 387 more.

The government has ordered 123 extra Jackals and one is being built every day. But the troops complain these wheeled vehicles often get STUCK in the sand.

As a result they are forced to use desert roads, where insurgents simply plant roadside bombs and wait. So far at least 17 soldiers have been badly injured in Jackals and four killed.

Instead of heavy vehicles, our hard-pressed troops have 250 WMIK Land Rovers, which provide no protection from the Taliban's bombs. Three other vulnerable vehicles, Snatch Land Rovers, Viking all-terrain vehicles and Pinzgauer Vector trucks, are also being withdrawn.

Why so many casualties?

MOUNTING British deaths are blamed on the Taliban's increasing mastery of roadside bombs, as well as the shortage of troops, 'copters and blast-proof vehicles.

In all, 185 servicemen and women have now lost their lives in Afghanistan with hundreds more injured. Taliban fighters have stepped up their bombing campaign, using bigger improvised explosive devices (IEDs) hidden under roads, in walls and along paths.

They also lay secondary devices aimed at maiming or killing rescuers of those caught in the first blast.

One senior officer said: "They know where our weaknesses are, and are exploiting them ruthlessly." Yet moving around the country in ground vehicles is crucial. One officer said: "We have to be seen on the ground to have any impact". But that puts our troops in harm's way."

Of the eight British soldiers who died in 24 hours on July 9 and 10, one group of five died on the same foot patrol in Nad Ali Sangin. The blast at 5.20am led to the death of two soldiers. Ten minutes later as the patrol moved to a secure location another was detonated, killing three more.

It was one of the bloodiest onslaughts of the war and experts say it shows the Taliban have learned to predict the reactions of our troops under attack.

The rising toll is also due to a change in tactics, as British troops have stepped up the pace and are actively seeking out the enemy.

Their aim is to allow next month's Afghan elections to take place safely, and permanently remove the Taliban from the densely populated strip along the Helmand River.

Our forces are also under new rules curbing air strikes, in a bid to cut civilian casualties. As a result, ground troops who would have previously called in air support are now forced into vicious firefights.

Experts say our soft-target military vehicles make matters worse. Troops have slammed their all-terrain Viking carriers for lacking a V-shaped hull to deflect blasts away from those inside.

Fighting in the Green Zone

BRITISH infantrymen are trained to take out targets up to 400 metres away. But when our troops tangle with the Taliban in Afghanistan's poppy-filled "Green Zone", they find BAYONETS as important as their rifles.

Patrick Hennessy, the Army's youngest captain when he served there in 2007, likened the combat our troops now endure to what World War II soldiers faced in France.

He said: "My grandfather used to tell stories of the fighting in Normandy after D-day. Deadly tank ambushes on wooded lanes and stumbling upon squads of Germans lurking in thick hedgerows.

"I hardly gave his tales of hand-to-hand combat a second thought until I got to Helmand and realised how little had changed in 60 years. The lush fields criss-crossed by deep irrigation ditches run for about a mile either side of the Helmand river.

"It's where most of the locals live, where all the opium and crops like maize grow, and where the Taliban are almost INVISIBLE . . . until you're on top of them.

"Poppies grow up to head height and the villages and compounds are even worse with mazes of thick walls. You're as likely to hear the enemy whispering as spot him."

Capt Hennessy, author of The Junior Officers' Reading Club, explained how it can take more than 100 men a whole day to clear a few miles of Green Zone.

He said: "Careful co-ordination is required between all the units to make sure that the guys a mile to the east or west aren't mistaken for the enemy - or to warn them if it looks like the Taliban fighters are heading their way.

"The Taliban are smart. As we patrolled villages we'd find dogs tied to posts and realised they were measuring our advance by the barking.

"In training, the most tiring thing I did, both physically and emotionally, was bayonet training. We never thought we'd need such a savage and basic weapon but the reality is that they're still very much in use."

Which nations have helped?

SOLDIERS from 48 countries have contributed to the war effort in Afghanistan since 2001. Forty-two are still there.

The 60,311 troops making up the coalition force are backed up by 90,000 Afghan army soldiers and 80,000 Afghan police officers. By far, the greatest numbers of foreign troops have come from the US and Great Britain.

The third largest contingent comes from Germany, which committed 1,000 extra troops last year. So far 32 of its soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan.

France has agreed to send Eurocopter Tiger attack helicopters later this year, and President Nicolas Sarkozy is considering sending up to 5,000 soldiers next year. There have been 28 French soldiers killed since the war began in 2001.

Canada has lost 123 soldiers - its greatest loss in conflict since the Korean War. Last year the government said it would withdraw most of its troops in 2011. The Netherlands, which have lost 19 soldiers, have also announced they are withdrawing.

null

Q&A: Your questions answered by Gulf War II hero Col Tim Collins

Letters home: Moving messages from heroes who never returned

Map: Graphic explaining how troops are taking on the Taleban

Comment: Fraser Nelson says the war will be won or lost in Whitehall

The Fallen: Names of those who have given their lives

Eyewitness: Reporter Ryan Sabey reports from Helmand

This article has 9 comments